Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Mrf Limited vs Ltu Chennai on 19 August, 2025
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT No. I
Service Tax Appeal No. 40063 of 2016
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. LTUC/440/2015-C, dated 12.10.2015 passed by the Commissioner,
CE & ST, Large Tax Payer Unit, 1775 Jawaharlal Nehru Inner Ring Road, Anna Nagar Western Extn.
Chennai 600 101).
M/s. MRF Ltd. ...Appellant
114 (Old No.124), Greams Road
Chennai, Tamil Nadu.
VERSUS
The Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, ...Respondent
Large Taxpayer Unit
No.1775, Jawaharlal Nehru Inner Ring Road
Anna Nagar Western Extn.
Chennai 600 101.
APPEARANCE:
For the Appellant : Shri Karthik Sundaram, Advocate
For the Respondent : Shri Sanjay Kakkar, Authorised Representative
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
HON'BLE MR. AJAYAN T.V., MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
FINAL ORDER No. 40831/2025
DATE OF HEARING : 17.04.2025
DATE OF DECISION : 19.08.2025
Per Mr. AJAYAN T.V.
MRF Ltd., the appellant, has appealed against an order
dated 12-10-2015, issued by the Adjudicating Authority. The
order demanded payment of Rs. 58,38,707/- as service tax on
services purportedly received from their overseas offices between
October 2008 and September 2013, along with interest and
penalties under the Finance Act 1994.
2
ST/40063/2016
2. Brief facts are that the appellant manufactures tires, tubes and
flaps, which fall under Chapter 40 of the Central Excise Tariff Act
1995. Appellant is registered with the Large Taxpayer Unit in
Chennai for both excise and service tax purposes and operates
overseas offices in Australia, Dubai, Vietnam and Sri Lanka.
During an audit conducted by the Large Taxpayer Unit's audit
wing in September 2013, on examining the records, the
Department observed that the expenses at the overseas officers
are booked in the appellant's account. The Department was of the
view that in as much as the offices located abroad are deemed to
be a separate person for the purposes of Section 66A and the
expenses incurred in these officers are booked into the expense
account of the appellant it is implied that services are being
rendered by the overseas officers of the appellant to the
operations of the appellant in India, which would fall in the
definition of the erstwhile business support services classifiable
under Section 104(c) of the Finance Act 1994. The Department
was therefore of the view that irrespective of the reasons for the
expenses incurred at the overseas offices, the objective of the
overseas offices is to bring in business to the appellant and that it
is for that reason that the said expenses are booked in the
appellant's account.
3. Revenue was of the view that the appellant is required to pay
service tax on the entire reimbursed amount under reverse charge
mechanism, and that had it not been for the audit, this tax
liability would never have been discovered. Therefore, being of
the opinion that the appellant had deliberately concealed material
facts with the intention of evading service tax payments, in
violation of the Finance Act provisions, Revenue issued a Show
Cause Notice dated 04-04-2014, invoking the extended period of
limitation.
4. After due process of law, the Adjudicating Authority issued the
Order in Original dated 12-10-2015 confirming the service tax
3
ST/40063/2016
demand of Rs. 58,38,707/- and appropriated this amount along
with interest of Rs. 37,19,494/- that MRF had already paid and
imposed a penalty of equivalent amount under Section 78 of the
Finance Act. Dissatisfied with this decision, MRF filed an appeal
and is now before this Tribunal.
5. Shri Karthik Sundaram, Ld. Advocate appeared on behalf of
the appellant and submitted that the appellant had paid the entire
duty, 25% of the penalty and interest under protest, and, save for
an amount of Rs.11,01,745/- paid to consultants in Australia and
Sri Lanka, which is not being contested by the appellant; the
balance liability is being contested in toto. The Ld. Counsel
contended as under:
a) The overseas branches are simply extensions of the same
company, not separate entities. The branches coordinate
business activities, procure orders from local customers,
and handle collections in those countries. All expenses
incurred by these branches - including employee salaries,
office rent, car hire, and stationery - are reimbursed by
the head office at actual cost without any profit margin
added.
b) Since the branch offices and head office are legally the
same entity, there cannot be a taxable "service"
transaction between them. The activities performed by a
branch under instructions from its head office cannot be
considered as providing services to the head office.
Similarly, salaries paid to overseas employees and
expense reimbursements cannot be subject to service tax
because these are internal transactions within the same
legal entity.
c) Section 66A of the Finance Act is not designed to tax
services from overseas branches to Indian head offices,
and that various tribunal decisions support this
4
ST/40063/2016
interpretation. It is emphasized that reimbursements
made at actual cost without mark-up cannot constitute
taxable consideration, citing a Supreme Court decision in
Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats Pvt Ltd v UOI,
2013 (29) STR 9 (Del).
d) This is purely a matter of legal interpretation with no
element of tax evasion or wilful misstatement, so no
penalties should apply.
e) Reliance was placed on the decisions in Steel Authority of
India Ltd v CST, New Delhi, 2020 SCC Online CESTAT
1747, CCT v Indo US MIM Tec (P) Ltd, 2024 SCC Online
CESTAT 1505, Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd v CST,
Ahmedabad, 2015(39) STR 97 (Tri-Ahmd), KPIT
Technologies Ltd v CCE, Pune, 2014 (36) SGTR 1098 (Tri-
Mumbai), KPIT Technologies Ltd v CCE, Pune,2017 (7)
GSTL 468 (Tri-Mumbai), Intercontinental Consultants &
Technocrats Pvt Ltd v UOI, 2013 (29) STR 9 (Del) and
Krishna Auto Sales v CCE & ST, 2015 (40) STR 1121 (Tri-
Del) in this regard.
6. Shri. Sanjay Kakkar, Ld. Authorised Representative, appearing
for the Respondent reiterated the findings in the impugned OIO
and placed reliance on the decisions in Glyph International Ltd v
UOI, 2012 (25) STR 209 (All), M/s. Prithvi Information Solutions
Ltd v CCT, GST, 2025 (2) TMI 901-Cestat Hyderabad, 3I Infotech
Limited v CST, Mumbai-II, 2017(1) TMI 437-Tri Mumbai and M/s
Sahara India v CCE, Lucknow, 2024 (2)TMI- CESTAT Allahabad in
this regard. He also submitted that the matter may also require
verification whether the payments were indeed made for the
purposes stated and are in fact on actuals, and therefore it may
be remitted back to the adjudicating authority for the said
purpose.
5
ST/40063/2016
7. We have heard the rival submissions, carefully perused the
appeal records, as well as the case laws cited as relied upon.
8. The issue that arises for determination is whether by virtue of
the appellant's offices located abroad being deemed to be a
separate person for the purposes of section 66A of the Finance Act
1994, the demand of service tax on the entire reimbursed amount
of expenses of these overseas offices under reverse charge
mechanism, confirmed invoking Rule 5(1) of the Service tax
(Determination of Value) Rules 2006, on the allegation that the
appellant is receiving business support services, is tenable?
9. We find that the issue has already come up for decision before
coordinate benches of this Tribunal. It is seen that in the decision
in Commissioner of Central Tax v Indo US MIM Tec Private
Limited, reported in 2024 SCC Online CESTAT 1505, a case
where the respondent therein was reflecting foreign currency
expenditure for the period October 2007 to March 2013 in their
balance sheet as branch expenditure which had been incurred
towards expenses by the overseas branch offices, the tribunal has
noted the issue and its determination, and the relevant portions of
the decision are reproduced below:
"6. The issue involved in the present appeals for consideration is
whether the expenses incurred by the branch office of the
respondent at USA and Germany in rendering certain services
for and on behalf of respondent's main office in Bangalore would
attract service tax under Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994.
Revenue's contention is that the branch office of the respondent
at USA and Germany had rendered certain services in the nature
of meeting the customers, scheduling orders, follow-up of
payments, deliveries, marketing, etc., which is nothing but
Business Support Service by the branch office to the main office
of the respondent, since the expenditure had been paid in
foreign exchange, service tax under Section 66A of the Finance
Act, 1994 is required to be paid by the Respondent.
7. We find that the issue is already considered by this Tribunal
in KPIT Technologies Ltd. (supra). The Tribunal after analysing
the provisions of Section 66A held as follows:
"5. We have carefully considered the submissions. The short
question for consideration is whether a branch of a corporate
body situated abroad can be said to have rendered a service
to the head office of the body corporate situated in India.
6
ST/40063/2016
Section 66A in our prima facie view, does not provide for such
a situation. In the facts of the case before us, the branch
situated abroad has rendered service to the foreign clients
and tax liability has been discharged abroad. The branch
situated abroad has incurred certain expenditure which has
been reimbursed by the head office to its branch office. Such
reimbursements of expenditure by way of salaries or other
expenses cannot be said to be consideration paid for any
service rendered by the branch to the head office. The
purpose of Section 66A is for taxing the import of services
and not for taxing monetary transactions between the branch
and head office. For e.g. if a branch of an Indian bank is
situated abroad, Section 66A does not envisage treating the
foreign branch as a separate entity so far as the internal
transactions are concerned, if the head office reimburses to
the foreign branch expenses incurred by them abroad. It
cannot be said to be a consideration for any services
rendered. The services rendered abroad has been received by
the branch office located abroad. Merely because the
expenditure incurred for receipt of the services were
reimbursed to the foreign branch, the transaction does not
amount to import of services. The reason is that the service
provider, service recipient and place of performance of service
are all located abroad. The purpose of Section 66A is not to
tax service transactions taking place abroad. Such
transactions are beyond the taxing jurisdiction of the Indian
authorities. This view is supported by the decisions relied
upon by the appellant cited supra. Further, in respect of
outbound tourism, in the case of Cox & Kings India Ltd. v.
Commissioner of Service Tax [2013-TIOL-1907-CESTAT-DEL :
2014 (35) S.T.R. 817 (Tri.-Del.)] this Tribunal held the view
that though the service provider and service recipients are
Indian entities, since the service is rendered abroad, there is
no jurisdiction to tax the transactions in India. The ratio of
the said decision applies squarely to the facts of the case
before us."
8. More or less similar view has also been held by the Tribunal
following the said judgment in the case of Infosys Ltd. (supra).
Following the judgments rendered in KPIT Technologies Ltd. and
analysing the findings in the impugned order, it had observed
as:
"......The above conclusion has been reached on the ground
that a branch office also has to be treated as a separate
person for the purpose of Section 66A. If the branch office
has to be treated as a separate person for the purpose of
Section 66A, when the invoice is raised on the branch office
for service rendered and contract is entered into between the
branch office and the service provider, it cannot be said that
such contract has been entered into by the company located
in India. This is because for the purpose of levy of Service Tax
in the hands of receiver, the branch office is treated as a
separate person but for the purpose of determining as to who
has received the service, the branch office is treated as part
of the appellant. This, in our opinion, is not correct.
7
ST/40063/2016
7.10 In view of the above observations and discussions, we
find that Revenue has not been able to show that ITSS has
been received through their branch office in India and in the
absence of receipt of service, in our opinion, there is no
taxable event and therefore there is no liability on the
receiver to pay tax. Therefore, the entire demand of Rs.
132,35,71,266/-cannot be sustained and has to be set aside
and is set aside."
9. Following the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgments, we
do not see merit in the appeals filed by the Revenue.
Consequently, the impugned order is upheld and the appeals are
rejected. The Cross Objections filed by the Respondents are in
the nature of written submission, accordingly, disposed of."
10. Likewise, in the decision in Steel Authority of India Limited
v. Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi, reported in
2020 SCC OnLine CESTAT 1747, the Principal Bench of this
Tribunal at Delhi, has held as under:
"11. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the
Appellant and the learned Authorised Representative have been
considered.
12. The show cause notice issued to the Appellant alleges that the
Appellant received services from the overseas office in China which is
for furtherance of business and would be classifiable under BSS as
defined in section 65(104c) of the Act and this service is taxable
under section 65(105)(zzzq) of the Act. Thus, in terms of section 66A
of the Act read with rule 3 of the 2006 Rules, the Appellant being a
recipient of the service in India, was liable to pay service tax as a
deemed service provider.
13. The contention of the Appellant is that the office in Beijing is not
a separate legal entity and no independent business is carried out in
Beijing. The activities performed by the representative office in
Beijing cannot be covered by any sub-clause of section 65(105) of
the Act and reliance on section 66A of the Act is misplaced.
14. To appreciate the contentions, it would be appropriate to
reproduce the relevant provisions of the Act and they are as follows:
i) Section 65(104c) -- "support services of business or commerce"
means services provided in relation to business or commerce and
includes evaluation of prospective customers, telemarketing,
processing of purchase orders and fulfilment services, information
and tracking of delivery schedules, managing distribution and
logistics, customer relationship management services, accounting
and processing of transactions, Operational or administrative
assistance in any manner, formulation of customer service and
pricing policies, infrastructural support services and other transaction
processing.
8
ST/40063/2016
Explanation. -- For the purposes of this clause, the expression
"infrastructural support services" includes providing office along with
office utilities, lounge, reception with competent personnel to handle
messages, secretarial services, internet and telecom facilities, pantry
and security.
ii) Section 65(105)(zzzq) -- "taxable service" means any service
provided or to be provided - to any person, by any other person, in
relation to support services of business or commerce, in any manner;
iii) Section 66A. (1) Where any service specified in clause (105) of
section 65 is,--
(a) Provided or to be provided by a person who has established a
business or has a fixed establishment from which the service is
provided or to be provided or has his permanent address or usual
place of residence, in a country other than India, and (b) Received by
a person (hereinafter referred to as the recipient) who has his place
of business, fixed establishment, permanent address or usual place of
residence, in India,
Such service shall, for the purposes of this section, be the taxable
service, and such taxable service shall be treated as if the recipient
had himself provided the service in India, and accordingly all the
provisions of this Chapter shall apply:
Provided that where the recipient of the service is an individual and
such service received by him is otherwise than for the purpose of use
in any business or commerce, the provisions of this sub-section shall
not apply:
Provided further that where the provider of the service has his
business establishment both in that country and elsewhere, the
country, where the establishment of the provider of service directly
concerned with the provision of service is located, shall be treated as
the country from which the service is provided or to be provided.
(2) Where a person is carrying on a business through a permanent
establishment in India and through another permanent establishment
in a country other than India, such permanent establishments shall
be treated as separate persons for the purposes of this section.
Explanation 1. -- A person carrying on a business through a branch
or agency in any country shall be treated as having a business
establishment in that country.
Explanation 2. -- Usual place of residence, in relation to a body
corporate, means the place where it is incorporated or otherwise
legally constituted.
15. According to the Appellant, the representative office in Beijing
was opened in September 2007 and an employee was posted as its
chief representative. The said office did not have any independent
income as no business operations were carried out there and the
expenses borne by the office were reimbursed from India. It is,
therefore, the contention of the Appellant that it did not have a
permanent establishment for business purpose in Beijing.
16. In Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd., a Division Bench of the Tribunal
examined a similar issue and the observations are as follows:
"2. ------------ Appellant has established representative offices
in the countries like Russia, Vietnam etc. where they have
their branch offices. Exports and sales are made by the
appellant directly from India to overseas customers and
9
ST/40063/2016
representative branch offices/establishments of the appellant
abroad do not stock the goods or sale the goods. All the sale
proceeds are directly received by the appellant in India from the
overseas customers. Appellant's overseas representative office
facilitates the export business of the appellant. Appellant's branch
offices/establishment office abroad do not earn any revenue
on their own and expenditures incurred by such branch offices
are remitted by the appellant from India. The amount
remitted to the branch offices also included salaries paid to
the employees working in the branch offices abroad. One of
the element of demand raised by the Revenue is that branch
offices situated abroad are providing services to the appellant
and all the foreign remittances made by the appellant to its
branch offices are taken to be a considerations for providing
services to the appellant".
[Emphasis supplied]
17. The Tribunal noted the following contentions of the Appellant:
"3.4 With respect to demand of service tax under Annexure D-I of the
show cause notice, appellant argued that out of total demand in this
annexure a demand of service tax of Rs. 7 crores (Approx.) pertains
to the remittances to the foreign representative offices/branches
towards salary paid to the employees and cannot be considered as a
service and will not attract service tax. That for the employment of
people appellant entered into employment agreement with
employees in overseas branches where appellant is clearly shown as
an employer and the amount paid to the employees is reflected as
salary in their books of accounts and in the financial statements.
That relationship between employer and employee clearly is a
master-servant relationship and cannot be considered as
taxable services as per Section 65(105) of the Finance Act,
1994. That the adjudicating authority has considered the
branch offices of the appellant located outside India as a
separate legal person in view of Section 66A(2) of the Finance
Act, 1994. It is the case of the appellant that one cannot provide
services to one own-self, therefore, by creating a fiction in Section
66A(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, it cannot be said that branch offices
of the appellant is to be considered as a separate legal person for the
purpose of charging service tax on reverse charge basis".
[Emphasis supplied]
18. Ultimately, the Tribunal held:
"Section 66A(1) above is talking of service provider and service
recipient as 'persons' which has to mean as different business
persons. Section 66A (2) and its Explanation I only make a
clarification and to fix service tax liability on recipient of services
under reverse charge mechanism that both the permanent
establishments in India and abroad of a business person are to be
treated as separate persons. The above clarification/distinction
made in Section 66A in our opinion is only for making an
identification to determine whether a service is provided and
consumed in India or abroad. It is an accepted legal position that
one cannot provide service to one's own self. If the 'permanent
establishment' of the appellant abroad is treated as a service
provider to its own head office in India then it will amount to
charging service tax for an activity provided to one's own self.
Similarly placed branches of the appellant undertaking similar
10
ST/40063/2016
activities in India will not be held so. Therefore, a comprehensive
reading of Section 66A of the Finance Act 1994, a permanent
establishment situated abroad as a 'separate person', will be
understood to have been prescribed only to determine the
provision of service whether in India or out of India".
[Emphasis supplied]
19. A similar issue as to whether service tax could be levied on a
reverse charge basis was examined by a Division Bench of the
Tribunal
in Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Jaipur -I and the observations are as follows:
"5. On the first issue regarding tax liability of the appellant on
reverse charge basis under the category of business auxiliary
service, we note that the whole Service Tax liability was
confirmed on the expenses incurred for setting up and
running the branch offices in foreign countries by the
appellant. The branch offices were engaged in activities of
promoting and liaisoning the business of the appellant in such
countries. The lower authority held that such activity will be
taxed under BAS as these branches are engaged in promotion
and marketing of goods of the appellant. In this connection,
we have perused the provisions of Section 66A, more
specifically the proviso to the said Section.
6. We find that the Revenue has taken a stand that since as per the
proviso, a branch office located outside India shall be treated as a
separate business establishment, the services rendered by such
establishment should be treated for tax liability.
--------------
8. The ratio of the above decision and also the close reading of the proviso to Section 66 A along with explanation therein is make it clear that the legal fiction of considering a branch of an assessee as a separate establishment is not to tax a service rendered to its head office. Further, here there is no such service also has been identified with supporting evidence.
9. We find that the ratio adopted by the Tribunal in examining the application of the said proviso is appropriate to the facts of the present case and accordingly, we hold that the tax liability under BAS cannot be sustained. We note here that the whole expenses now sought to be taxed are only with reference to setting up, running and also expenses of the branch incurred by the appellant and not relating to any expenditure in their branches with reference to BAS".
[Emphasis supplied]
20. It is clear from the aforesaid two decisions that section 66A (1) refers to 'service provider' and 'service recipient' as 'persons' which would mean different business persons. Section 66A(2) and its Explanation I only fix service tax liability on a recipient of service under a reverse charge mechanism by treating the permanent establishments in India and abroad as separate persons. This only clarifies whether a service is provided and consumed in India or abroad. If the 'permanent establishment' is treated as a 'service provider' to its own head office in India then it will amount to charging service tax for an activity provided to own self. Therefore, a comprehensive reading of Section 66A of the Act, would indicate that a permanent establishment situated abroad as a 'separate person', is 11 ST/40063/2016 only to determine whether the provision of service is in India or out of India. The contention of the Appellant, therefore, deserves to be accepted.
21. The Commissioner (Appeals) also observed that section 66A is an independent charging section for levy of service tax on services provided or to be provided to a person located in India. This observation of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not correct. The charging section is section 66 of the Act and not section 66A, as was observed by the Allahabad High Court in Glyph International Ltd. v. Union of India. The observations of the High Court in this connection are as follows:
"34. It was clarified in the letter dated July 16, 2009 issued by the Joint Secretary (TRU-II), Tax Research Unit, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, that Section 66A is not a charging section by itself. In fact, it only creates a legal fiction to deem import of service, as provision of service within India, so that the provisions of Chapter-V of the Finance Act, 1994 can be applied to. The charging section remains Section 66, even for the service imported. In other words, the tax collected from the recipient in terms of section 66A, is also tax chargeable under Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994 and thus there is no mistake in the relevant provision of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and that credit of tax paid on imported services should be allowed, if they are in the nature of input services".
22. Though the aforesaid decision of the Allahabad High Court was placed before the Commissioner (Appeals), but the Commissioner (Appeals) has not followed it.
23. The confirmation of demand under the impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained.
24. It would, therefore, not be necessary to examine the contention of the Appellant that the extended period of limitation could not have been invoked in the present case.
25. Thus, for all the reason stated above, the impugned order dated 26 November 2015 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is liable to set aside and is set aside. The Appeal is, accordingly, allowed."
11. In light of the aforesaid decisions of this Tribunal, we are not persuaded to take a different view and we hold that the demand of service tax on the entire reimbursed amount of expenses of these overseas offices under reverse charge mechanism, confirmed invoking Rule 5(1) of the Service tax (Determination of Value) Rules 2006, on the allegation that the appellant is receiving business support services, save for that which already stood conceded by the appellant, is untenable and cannot sustain. For the aforesaid reasons, we find that the decisions relied upon 12 ST/40063/2016 by the Ld. A.R also do not advance the Respondent's case in any manner. Further, we do not find any merits in the submission of the Ld. A.R. that the matter may also require verification whether the payments were indeed made for the purposes stated and are in fact on actuals, and therefore it may be remitted back to the adjudicating authority for the said purpose. When the impugned show cause notice itself characterises the remittances as reimbursements and when the Order in Original also recognizes and acknowledges these payments as reimbursements while confirming the demand, such apprehensions expressed are wholly misplaced.
12. That apart, we find that the demand is sought to be made and sustained invoking Rule 5(1) of the Service tax (Determination of Value) Rules 2006. We find that the issue on levy of service tax on reimbursable expenses is no more res-integra in view of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of UOI v Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt Ltd, 2018 (10) GSTL 401 (SC) which has affirmed the decision of the Delhi High Court in Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats Pvt Ltd v UOI, 2013 (29) STR 9 (Del), wherein Rule 5(1) of the Service Tax Valuation Rules, 2006 which provided for inclusion of expenditures or costs incurred by the service provider in the course of providing taxable services, in the value of such taxable services, was stuck down as ultra vires Section 66 and Section 67 of the Act and as travelling beyond the scope of the said sections. Thus, the contested demand sought to be sustained invoking the provisions of Rule 5(1) ibid are unsustainable on this count too. Incidentally, we also notice that not only was the said Rule 5(1) ibid ever put to the notice of the appellant in the show cause notice, but also the activities of the appellant purported to be business support services as spelt out in the impugned order in original, were never crystallised as such in the show cause notice which only stated that the overseas offices 13 ST/40063/2016 of the appellant were impliedly providing business support services.
13. We are bound by the principles enunciated in the aforementioned decisions of the coordinate benches of this Tribunal as well as the Judgement of the Honourable Apex Court noticed above, and respectfully following the judicial dicta therein, we hold that the demand of service tax, save for the amount not contested, along with applicable interest thereon, as well as penalty imposed under the impugned order in original do not sustain. We also find that the issue involved being an interpretational one, the invoking of extended period of limitation and imposing of penalty was untenable and the decisions relied on by the appellant in this regard are apposite.
14. For the reasons stated above, we modify the impugned Order in Original, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, LTU, Chennai, and while upholding the demand that has not been contested along with applicable interest thereon, we set aside the demand to the extent it has been contested, along with the consequent interest thereon, as well as the whole of the penalty imposed thereunder. The appellant is entitled to consequential relief in law, if any.
The appeal is allowed in these terms.
(Order pronounced in open court on 19.08.2025) (AJAYAN T.V.) (VASA SESHAGIRI RAO) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) ra